BF2S Forums Big government, do we need it? [USA]

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. Actually owning a C-172 or a Piper Cherokee is not that big of a deal. It is about the same price as a nice new car. BMW or such. So you are telling me that the EU middle class are land and HOUSE owners? I guess I watch too many movies.

Perhaps so, in Ireland at any rate the middle class demands to own a house, which is contributing to massive urban sprawl and with our recent affluence some horrendous looking behemoths of houses in the countryside.

lowing wrote:

2. How many of those killings in the US are felon on felon crimes? How many are home defenders taking care of intruders compared to actual criminals shooting innocent people?

I don't know exactly and I don't think it's relevant. The fact of the matter is the US has a homicide rate 5 times higher than the largest European nation.

lowing wrote:

3. Like I said, 911 was out of every ones control it would be impractical to just simply let our nations airlines collapse. It would have wiped out our economy. Extraordinary circumstances calls for extraordinary solutions. This had nothing to do with corporate competition, ALL of our lines were going to fail at the same time. NOT the same thing as some idiot that buys shit on credit they can not afford so they look at more credit cards for their solution. Personal financial irresponsibility should hardly be high on the priority list of problems our taxpayers should be solving.

I get it - 9/11 out of our control, bail out the airlines, Hurrican Katrina out of our control - fuck the residents of New Orleans. It's quite clear now. How hypocritical: you don't want to see an airline or a state go under but you're quite happy to see a several hundred years old shipping city full of American citizens bite the dust. Quite clear.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. Sounds great for Ireland, how 'bout the REST of the AVERAGE middle class in Europe?

A lot of middle class Europeans indulge themselvs with properties along the Costa Del Sol in Spain, the Algarve in Portugal and rural France (Provence, etc.). A lot actually ill-advisedly bought into the Florida property market, which probably means they're fucked as they're not owner-occupiers and the market is collapsing.

lowing wrote:

2. I think it is VERY relevent! THe numbers could go toward are leanicy toward crime and criminals. Which makes the question not why all the guns, but, why all the criminals?

It is the role of the state to dispense justice, not the individual. To think otherwise is to advocate pure anarchy with gun-happy individuals dispensing fatal justice at the slightest provocation.

lowing wrote:

3. 911 out of our control...Hurricane Katrina...... You have a week to get out of the city or ya might get killed. In a week you coulda walked or even crawled outta the city.  Katrina "victims" are STILL looking for FREE handouts, and getting pissed because the tit ran dry. Anyone that had any kinda life in N.O. has long rebuilt it. SO I guess if I loose my house to a flood, I am entitled to eternal govt. leeching and free housing?? Where do I sign up?

I would imagine that your phrase "Anyone that had any kinda life in N.O. has long rebuilt it." is complete utter stinking bullshit. A great many hard working people may have lost every last item they owned at the hands insurance policy small print clauses - you can't build that back in 1/30th the amount of time it took to build it up in the first place. Your absence of compassion and togetherness with your fellow American and your compassion and respect for unscrupulous 'we're off to India' now business baffles me.

The Irish national carrier Aer Lingus, in the aftermath of 9/11, was losing €2m a day but did this European 'leech' bleed the government for a bail out? No - it organised this with its workforce:

- the workforce Employee Share Option Scheme (ESOP) equity stake was increased to 14.9%
- a 25% reduction in capacity came into effect with the introduction of the winter flight schedules;
- a voluntary severance/early retirement programme providing for a staff reduction of more than 30% of the 6,300 person workforce was agreed; The figures included 150 pilots, 470 cabin crew and more than 500 ground staff, as well as 550 clerical staff.
extensive work practice and other changes were agreed as well as a cost reduction programme and
- a number of non-essential assets were identified for sale.

This transformed the company back to year-on-year profit the free market capitalism way - the 'American' way if you will. And yet American airlines couldn't fend for themselves? The government had to support those too weak to adapt to the new environment? It's odd that you propose bail outs for companies and feel okay about leaving an important transport and shipping hub, home and employer to hundreds of thousands of people (through the assocaited service industry also), 'out to dry', pardon the pun...

Last edited by lowing (2008-01-15 15:07:18)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

4. My favorite, get ready to pull yer foot out of your mouth Cam,......... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aer_Lingus  ...28% govt. owned.

taken from http://www.tierramerica.net/2004/1211/iacentos.shtml
"European airlines, like Easyjet, Ryanair and Germanwings, can afford the low airfares because of generous subsidies from national governments, which do not tax jet fuel, the only tax-free fuel in the world. In addition, commercial aviation does not have to pay the value-added tax that is applied to all other commercial transactions. "

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde
"The development programme was a product of an Anglo-French government treaty, with 20 aircraft built. The costly development phase thus represented a substantial economic loss. Air France and British Airways were subsidised to buy the aircraft by their governments, while other sales were blocked by the 1973 oil crisis and competition from the Boeing 747. Concorde made large operating profits for British Airways for much of its service life."

I could go on I really really could, but in short, European airlines are subsadized by their govts. as a matter of practice, not as a matter of emergency. SO please spare me your free market BULLSHIT about European carriers.

First off, you have made the error of thinking that I propose 'zero support' of business. That is incorrect. My post was a criticism of your apparent double standards vis a vis New Orleans. On the Aer Lingus issue:

I'm well aware the government has a stake in Aer Lingus lowing. The point, which you missed, is that the government did not bail the company out - they ploughed no money into the company post 9-11 to ease the pain of the post 9-11 downturn. Instead they let the company sort itself out through restructuring and making it imperative to become more competitive. No bail out occurred. No tax money was diverted. The reason being that it is illegal for EU nations to subsidise airlines...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3962797.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3449821.stm
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,214 … 61,00.html

Tell me why Ryanair have to fight court cases in Europe about ILLEGAL subsidies? And lose.

dw-world.de wrote:

The European Commission insists it is in favor of no-frills airlines, and points to its efforts towards promoting deregulation and ending state aid to national carriers that help fuel the meteoric rise of Ryanair and its ilk.

It says it is taking actions in this case to ensure that everyone plays by the same rules. The regulations ban subsidies unless they are on a purely commercial, such as those offered by a private airport operator.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3505658.stm

BBC wrote:

The European Union is set to adopt laws giving it the right to fine foreign airlines it believes are receiving unfair state aid.

The move reflects frustration in Europe over big subsidies paid to US airlines since the 11 September attacks.

The EU's own strict state aid regime outlaws all airline subsidies, although European governments were allowed to underwrite their carriers' insurance costs in the aftermath of 11 September.

I think that successfully places my foot in your mouth.

Europe is in the process of deregulating nearly all business, from the electricity industry through to infrastructure through to transport.

Last edited by lowing (2008-01-15 16:57:03)

usmarine2005 wrote:

lowing wrote:

You are trying to critize the US govt. for bailing out ALL the airlines

Has he said that?  I am not reading all 7 pages.  But if he did say that, he is beyond incorrect.  Now sure some of the big guys have been bailed out, but that is a good thing in a way.  Think of the jobs that would be lost if they let Delta or Northwest collapse.  Now in fairness, the airlines did that to themselves, but it does not compare to the support euro airlines get.

Now I could be wrong, but back in the 90's I believe Quantas was owned by the government.  I believe they sold it to the airline in the early 90's.  Not sure if they still get government help.

Even Air Canada got help after 9/11.

Also, last time I checked Emirates was completely owned by the government.  That may have changed, but I am not sure.

lowing wrote:

Cam, you gotta be kiddin me!!. You are trying to critize the US govt. for bailing out ALL the airlines, at the same time dismissing the FACT that European govts. subsadize their airlines as a business practice. YOu are beating your chest bragging how your govt. did not subsadize Air Lingus when the fact of the matter is  AIR LINGUS IS PART OF YOUR GOVT. Do not tell for a second that your govt. would allow their national carrier to flounder.

Sure Europe is in the "process of deregulating" but the US carriers HAVE BEEN deregulated since 1979 or so. and that regulation that they flew under was essentually price fixing by the govt. European carriers for the most part had govt. assistence before during and after 911.

The best part is, you wanna actually DOWN PLAY the involvment of your govts. in the success of  Europes national carriers.  Gimme a break!!!!!!!

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-15 23:58:36)

usmarine2005 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

State subsidisation of airlines in the EU - ILLEGAL

Then why did Ryanair try to sue the EU?

Just because it is illegal, does not mean it is not happening.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-16 00:44:38)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cam, you gotta be kiddin me!!. You are trying to critize the US govt. for bailing out ALL the airlines, at the same time dismissing the FACT that European govts. subsadize their airlines as a business practice. YOu are beating your chest bragging how your govt. did not subsadize Air Lingus when the fact of the matter is  AIR LINGUS IS PART OF YOUR GOVT. Do not tell for a second that your govt. would allow their national carrier to flounder.

Sure Europe is in the "process of deregulating" but the US carriers HAVE BEEN deregulated since 1979 or so. and that regulation that they flew under was essentually price fixing by the govt. European carriers for the most part had govt. assistence before during and after 911.

The best part is, you wanna actually DOWN PLAY the involvment of your govts. in the success of  Europes national carriers.  Gimme a break!!!!!!!

No I'm not criticising American policy because as you know I believe in protectionism - all I'm criticising is your double standards: a supposed right wing free market capitalist 'government stay out of my affairs' man advocating big government, subsidies, bail outs and whatnot while at the same time stating two contrary views: 'We can't let a state go under', 'We can let a major city go under'.

That's all.

FACT OF THE MATTER: State subsidisation of airlines in the EU - ILLEGAL. Fact. There ye go. The success of aer lingus has been precisely the necessity for it to no longer nuzzle at the teet of the taxpayer.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

I have no double standard Cam, by bailing out the airlines, ALL the airlines, the govt. essentially saved hundreds of thousands of jobs probably even more when you consider all of the support companies surrounding aviation. Do not try and compare my belief in "only helping those that help themselves", and my approval for airline bailouts after 911 as a double standard. I am quite consistent in my beliefs. The airlines provide jobs and help a community, and thus qualify for my "golden rule", a leech, slug or tic, does neither.

Whenever a large company's failure will impact a national economy or even a world economy affecting millions, I have no problem getting them stabilized, especially when there is no competition behind them to take their place, because they are going to sink just as rapidly. The rules of capitalism ( which I believe in) simply do not apply. 911 was a national emergency and govt. assistance was warranted, it was not a issue of crude business practices driving out the competition. I have no problem with and airline folding because there would be someone there to buy the routes, the planes, the gates and take the most of the employees to beef up their ranks with their added acquisitions. 911 was not such a circumstance.

Now I'm not expert on the US air industry but usmarine, who works in it, states 'some of the big guys have been bailed out'. Now I don't have time to check right now as I'm in the middle of a course on subsea HVDC technology but that would tend to contradict your statement: "by bailing out the airlines, ALL the airlines." So who got the subsidies? Airline chiefs who slipped a few dollars into a senators campaign kitty? Why did the government prefer certain airlines over others, to me that would be an improper government intervention in the free market.

The bail out matter I have realised is irrelevant anyway because individual states could bail out their own companies to preserve jobs in their own states in a more decentralised government - the ability to subsidise business is not a preserve of federal government. Then states like Michigan might be able to stop their job numbers from sinking into the gutter. Regional governments would be able to protect their own jobs by diverting regional taxes into, perhaps not subsidies, but business incentives programs, etc. At the local level they would be serving the voters and citizens of the state far more effectively and be far more able to cope with these kind of matters.

As for your multi-self contradictory stances - you will not be able to convince me that you are being consistent, I have made up my mind on the plain evidence presented at length in this thread and others. As such, I guess this conversation ends here. Let's face it lowing - you complain pretty much about any spending of your hard earned cash by the government, given that you can't choose what it's spent on, then you go on a 'praise the government' speech on their spending of your tax money on 'some of the big guys' in the air industry. You'll watch a great American city go down the tubes but support a bail out of some large airline even though the livelihood and wellbeing of American citizens is at stake on both counts.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

I worked in the industry for 15 years, the CEO's got golden parachutes but not form the govt. the company strapped them into it.

The govt, aided the entire airline industry, not just a few, essentially saving our economy, I already explained my reasons for agreeing with this action.

a) The entire economy of the US doesn't revolve around airlines.

b) EU airlines successfully weathered the 9/11 storm without subsidies with only one airline going out of business I believe (Swissair, although that had more to do with mismanagment and bad financial reporting). Why couldn't the US airlines do likewise? One or two inefficient airlines going down wouldn't have killed the country.

c) Your concept of 'subsidies = job security = keeping the country afloat' takes a bit of a hit when you consider the fact that the airlines lapped up the subsidies but then proceeded to restructure in accordance with what European airlines were doing and shed jobs/downsize.

http://www.jobbankusa.com/News/Layoffs/ … 2804b.html [Continental dump 500 employees in 2005.]
http://dayton.bizjournals.com/dayton/st … ?from_yf=1 [Delta dump 8,000 employees and promise more in 2005.]
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/f … falayoffs/ [Northwest lay off 1400 in 2005.]

Nice - pocket the subsidy, dump the employee...

d) Why not subsidise this ailing behemoth? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5345574.stm

e) How were subsidies allocated? In accordance to number of jobs supported? In which case the likes of a startup like Skybus would have to work 100 times as hard as one of the established big names in the airline industry to be able to compete. Very competition-oriented...

You still haven't realised that a company's allegiance is to the balance sheet - not to America and its people - they will lay off people in a microsecond if it thinks it can a) get away with it and b) profit more.

lowing wrote:

I am not inconsistent, your pattern, past to present, of cherry picking what I say and NEVER acknowledging that I have always supported helping those that help themselves is getting tiresome. You continually and conveniently choose to ignore this fact about my opinions. So until you acknowledge my true opinions as they have been posted time and time again about who I support and why, I guess you are correct. We can end this conversation here. Just as abruptly as , those who label me a racist ran for the woodwork and bailed out of the race thread as soon as I called them on it.

This thread is about big government v small government. If you equate subsidisies with job security then think about this: if individual states had more taxes to hand (arising from reduced federal taxes) they could far more effectively secure jobs in their state through such measures - giving a more efficiently and effectively administered and policed system distributed across the entire country - than could a central government.

Many, many residents of New Orleans helped themselves for a long, long time - running shops that no longer exist, factories that no longer exist, barbers that no longer exist, leisure facilities that no longer exist, etc., etc. Livehiloods and business established that probably took decades to build up but were washed away in a matter of hours. What were they supposed to do? Transport their homes and businesses on trucks with the 'weeks notice' they were given? You are a hypocrite because you piss all over the concept of compassion for these people and their city while talking about the necessity to prevent a state from 'going bankrupt'.

Edit:

Some more interesting reading...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … ghts_N.htm

usmarine2005 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

You imply that the entire industry would hit the deck which is ludicrous: there would have been a dip followed by a rebound and, as in Europe, probably a maximum of about one or two airlines would have bit the dust: not every last one as you seem to imply and upon which the basis of your argument relies.

Ok, well that is what pretty much happened here after 9/11.  The airline I worked for at that time, was one of 5 to actually consistently make a profit after 9/11.  United got the most help, but they were heading for bankruptcy anyway IMO.  So one airline got "bailed out." 

Now people point at the fact they got money after 9/11.  Well simple fact is they were grounded because of it.  So they had to make up for the lost revenue.  If you can imagine the logistical nightmare with passengers, crews, and planes after a week of sitting, then I think you can understand the cost.